Talk:Franco-Tahitian War/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Hog Farm (talk · contribs) 14:45, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Lead - The lead should be expanded, one sentence is too short for a GA. An expansion giving a sentence or two to each of: background of the conflict, with French colonization mentioned, an brief summary of the campaign, and a sentence about the aftermath would be nice.

Prelude - You talk about Pritchard expelling the Catholic missionaries, but the next citation after that is for the Morenhout, which supports the statement that Morenhout was consul but not Pritchard kicking people off the islands. It looks like that statement is probably supported by reference 8, which is after the one about the complaint being filed. A citation to wherever this information is found should be between the Pritchard eviction and the Morenhout reference, to make it clear where the information actually comes from.

Added an extra citation and move things around.

There's a lot of redlinks in this article: Ships, battles, tribal leaders, and Morenhout the French consul. If these items are notable, then the redlinks should be retained to encourage article creation. If not, the wikilinks should be removed.

Most are needed.

References - I'm not 100% sold on one of the sources. WP:SCHOLARSHIP talks about using theses as sources, and Newbury's doctorate thesis seems to pass muster, although I'm not sure Gonschor's master's thesis. "Masters dissertations and theses are considered reliable only if they can be shown to have had significant scholarly influence." - Does this thesis meet that requirement? It's cited 7 times in the article.

See Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Teriitaria II. I made a case for the use of Gonschor's thesis as the only work of its kind to summarize the entire period, topic and geographical area.

The images are both public domain, so they work. I'm not finding any COPYVIO either.

@KAVEBEAR: Aside from a couple smaller things, there's only two large ones that need addressed - The brevity of the lead and the question of the reliability of Gonschor's thesis. Hog Farm (talk) 15:27, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Hog Farm: I made the changes. Please look and continue with review. KAVEBEAR (talk) 17:23, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@KAVEBEAR: - Good work on the lead, and if Gonschor was accepted in an A-class review, I'll accept it here. Passing as GA, my concerns have been addressed. Hog Farm (talk) 17:31, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]